Letters To The Editor

February 20, 2003

`Founding Fathers'

A Diverse Group

If I could correct any of the common myths regarding the founding period of the United States, it would be the one raised by Philip B. Bourgeois in his Feb. 14 letter, ``Faith Isn't Left At The Door.''

He writes, ``If The Courant's editors were to read the documents or personal histories of our Founding Fathers, they would see the unmistakable mark of their faith in God in their writings and lives.'' It is consistently repeated in letters such as this that there was a group of ``Founding Fathers'' who all had some characteristic -- in this case, faith in God. The men who helped form our nation, however, were not some homogeneous entity, and the level and character of their ``faith in God'' was quite diverse.

As the most pertinent example, it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase ``a wall of separation between church and state,'' the reality of which Mr. Bourgeois calls ``absurd.'' This phrase does not appear in the Constitution, but Jefferson used it to describe the religious liberties manifested in the First Amendment. Interestingly, Jefferson's phrase appears in a letter he wrote in response to a letter he received from the Danbury Baptist Association.

Although we can debate whether it is consistent with religious liberty for government to provide funds to faith-based providers of social services, it is poor argument to refer back to the mythical ``Founding Fathers'' as some monolithic authority who would support one side of the debate or the other. People often make such references as if they should trump any other argument put forth. Americans should put behind them this tendency to mythologize the group of individual men who led this nation in its infancy.

Michael E Morrell

Manchester

The writer is a professor of political theory.

Don't Deplete

Soldiers' Fund

It is an act of criminal intent to rob millions of dollars from the state's Soldiers, Sailors and Marine Fund. This would be done to cover part of the budget shortfall, caused by the inept, incompetent overspending of our hard-earned tax dollars. The Soldiers, Sailors and Marine Fund was started after World War I to help veterans.

Due to the dedication of a few employees and many volunteers, this program has remained self- supporting all this time. Its main goal is to help all veterans in times of financial need. It has been successful.

In my opinion and that of many other veterans, money from the fund should not be taken for any reason other than to help veterans. Our legislators now feel they have a right to take about $9 million from the fund and add it to the general fund.

This is being done at a time when our president is sending thousands of men and women to the Middle East, getting ready for war. They will be expected to fight or die for our country.

Is that what we want to tell our returning veterans, that they can fight and die for us, but we can't help them in their time of need? Why not rescind all the other previous tax cuts, and be done with it. I don't like it, but what can we do?

Gilbert F. Justo

Granby

The writer is a veteran of the Korean War.

A Whiff Of Fascism?

Rather than engaging in a cutesy (albeit flawed) comparison that questions the legitimacy of President Bush's (s)election in her Feb. 17 letter ``Bush, Hitler: No Comparison,'' Robin Nevelos might have pointed to the fascist implications of the Bush administration's attacks on the civil liberties enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

By saying this in print, I court attacks by self-styled patriots in and out of government who, in the name of national security, would limit my right to question the wisdom of our ``War on Terror.''

In these days of orange alerts, I am still waiting for a serious discussion in our mainstream media of the proper balance between protecting our security and protecting our liberties. Rather, our chicken media, especially TV news, prefer to boost their ratings by hyping real and imagined threats to the point of promoting panic. Where is responsibility in this picture?

Harald M. Sandstrom

Bloomfield

The writer is an associate professor of politics and government at the University of Hartford.

Say It Isn't So, Joe

I feel like the young boy tugging at his baseball idol's sleeve, hoping beyond hope that his hero hasn't done anything very wrong.

Each day I read the court reports on the Joe Ganim trial and feel the same sadness I'm sure the young boy felt as the testimony in court built up against Shoeless Joe. I'm an ``I like Mike,'' ``Go Hartford'' fan, but I have also looked on with admiration as ``Mayor Joe'' led his city out of the morass and into respectability.

I can only imagine the feelings of the citizens of Bridgeport who have supported Mayor Ganim and now watch as very compelling evidence is presented in court condemning their leader. How can such a fine man go so astray?